821 F.3d 196
1st Cir.2016Background
- Brothers Alfredo and Gustavo Villoldo obtained a $2.79 billion Florida judgment (recognized by a New York federal judgment) against Cuba and sought to execute it against assets in the U.S.
- They targeted 383 accounts identified by transfer agent Computershare as blocked under the Cuba sanctions regime; brothers argued those accounts were nationalized by Cuba's 1959 Law 568 and thus belonged to the Cuban government and were attachable.
- District Court initially ordered turnover of book-entry shares and cash (Feb 12, 2014) but left certificated shares and objecting-party accounts unresolved; later (July 7, 2015) the court reversed, concluding the blocked accounts were not Cuba’s property and dismissed the case.
- The United States filed a statement of interest urging the court not to give extraterritorial effect to Cuba’s confiscatory law because doing so would interfere with U.S. foreign policy and executive prerogatives.
- Computershare moved (late) for attorneys’ fees under the Massachusetts trustee process and Rule 54; the District Court denied the fee motion as untimely, finding the July 7 dismissal satisfied Rule 58 and Rule 54’s 14-day clock had run.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Villoldo) | Defendant's Argument (Computershare / U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb 12, 2014 turnover order was a final judgment (Rule 54) | The turnover order resolved the brothers’ execution rights and thus was final and not revisable | The order left claims unresolved (certificated shares, objector accounts) so it was non-final | Not final under Rule 54(b); District Court could revisit it |
| Whether Law 568 made the blocked U.S.-located accounts the property of Cuba (act of state doctrine) | Law 568 nationally confiscated assets of Cuban nationals abroad, so courts must recognize Cuba’s title | The extraterritorial exception to the act of state doctrine bars U.S. courts from recognizing foreign confiscations of property located in the U.S.; U.S. government opposes recognition | Held: Do not give extraterritorial effect to Law 568; accounts are not Cuba’s property |
| Whether the July 7, 2015 dismissal satisfied Rule 58 and triggered Rule 54’s 14-day fee clock | Computershare: July 7 Order was not a separate Rule 58 document (not labeled "judgment" and referred to memorandum), so fee clock never started | Brothers/District Court: Order was a self-contained dismissal document and satisfied Rule 58 | Held: July 7 Order was a separate Rule 58 document; Rule 54’s 14-day clock ran |
| Whether District Court abused discretion denying extension for late fee motion or whether Computershare can seek fees now under state trustee statute | Computershare: counsel’s misunderstanding and case posture made filing late; alternatively, fee request is premature because Computershare has not been adjudged trustee or discharged | District Court: no good cause or excusable neglect shown; appellate court lacks authority to award discharge-first fees; Computershare waived appeal on discharge issue | Held: No abuse of discretion denying extension; Computershare cannot file now on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (recognition of foreign confiscation as archetypal act of state)
- W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co., Inc. v. Envir. Tectonics Corp., Int'l., 493 U.S. 400 (act of state doctrine explained)
- First Nat'l City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 406 U.S. 759 (Executive Branch views entitled to weight on act-of-state issues)
- Republic of Iraq v. First Nat'l City Bank, 353 F.2d 47 (extraterritorial exception to act of state doctrine)
- Maltina Corp. v. Cawy Bottling Co., 462 F.2d 1021 (refusal to give extraterritorial effect to foreign confiscation)
- Williams & Humbert Ltd. v. W. & H. Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd., 840 F.2d 72 (same principle rejecting extraterritorial application of confiscatory decrees)
- Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310 (statutory intervention to make certain foreign assets attachable; distinguished here)